MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIESMayor Morrison noted vacancies in the Public Arts Commission, Tree Commission and Budget Committee.

SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The minutes of the Study Session of September 15, 2008 and Regular Council of September 16, 2008 were approved as presented.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDSMayor Morrison's Proclamation of October 5-11 as National Fire Prevention Week was read aloud.

CONSENT AGENDA1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?2. Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Melody Norass as Parks and Recreation liaison for a term to expire April 30, 2010 to the Forest Lands Commission?3. Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Dudley Wynkoop for a term to expire April 30, 2009 to the Public Arts Commission?4. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Ilene Rubinstein dba Chozu Bath and Tea Garden at 832 A Street?5. Will the Council approve a mutual aid agreement between Oregon Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (ORWARN) and the City of Ashland for the provision of emergency services related to water and wastewater utilities?6. Will the Council approve a resolution allocating Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenue for tourism and non-tourism purposes for FY2009-2010 and after?

Councilor Chapman requested that item #6 be removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion.

PUBLIC FORUMKat Smith/276 B Street/Announced International Walk & Bike to School Day on October 8, 2008 and invited the Mayor and Council to participate.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS1. Clay Street Acquisition Proposal Update?

City Senior Planner Brandon Goldman presented the staff report on scheduling a public hearing to consider a proposed land exchange and property purchase of 10 acres on Clay Street to be used for a public park and an affordable housing project in partnership with the Housing Authority of Jackson County (HAJC).

Mr. Goldman updated Council on the negotiation status with the current owner, the appraised value of the property, the trade value of the Lithia Way Lot, contributions by the Housing Authority of Jackson County and the amount of the inter-fund loan.

Mr. Goldman and John Elzy, the HAJC Housing Development Specialist, gave a presentation on the project that included:

Property Description

Purchase Option Agreement

Site Division

Housing Components

Potential Parks Components

Housing Authority of Jackson County

Slides of current HAJC housing units

Conceptual Layout for Clay Street Project

Project Amenities

Unit Amenities

High Quality Construction Standards

Acquisition and Development

If the project moves forward, the Housing Authority is ready to proceed immediately. Once a year

Oregon Housing takes applications for funding with the bulk of that funding coming from low income tax credits. Applications are due February 2009 and one of the primary scoring criteria for funding is the readiness to proceed with construction. Submitting an application would require a considerable amount of pre-development. If Oregon Housing approved the application, the City would receive funding April 2009. After due diligence, construction could start as early as late fall 2009. The Clay Street project does not include Westwood.

The 3.75 acres adjacent to the YMCA for the Clay Street project has been reserved in case the Parks Department decides to acquire that property. If the Parks Department purchases the property, it would create funds to pay back the inter-fund loan. If the Parks Department declines, the property would be used as security for the loan and could be sold to pay for part of the Clay Street purchase. The appraised value of the 3.75 acres is $360,000 per acre for a total of $1,450,000. City Administrator Martha Bennett explained that Council can decide how long to carry the $750,000 inter-fund loan.

Part of the potential purchase includes trading the Lithia Way lot, which would result in losing 10 affordable housing studio units at 500 square feet each with the proceeds going to purchase the Clay Street property.

Don Robertson, Director of Parks & Recreation explained how the acquisition would extend two undersized ball fields and create a strong entrance to the YMCA Park from Clay Street as well as an entrance used for maintenance. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the plan and directed staff to provide a map identifying the quarter mile radius designated for walking space. The Parks and Recreation Commission were also interested in the Planning Department's comments regarding the proposed plans as it pertains to wetlands, storm issues and transportation issues. There were concerns regarding payment for the wetlands, what would be used in the periphery around the wetlands and parking requirements.

Under the current code, the maximum number for affordable housing on the Lithia Way lot is 13 units to meet the 60 units per acre requirement with the Lithia Way lot at 7,000 square feet. This maximum includes a number of studios.

If the Parks Department purchases the 3.75 acres, they will create several head in parking spaces instead of constructing a parking lot. The Parks and Recreation Commission are interested in discussing a shared acquisition of the wetlands with the City.

The population targeted for Clay Street is work force families earning between 30%-60% of the area median income. The current vacancy rate for rentals in that target range is 2.5% - 4% throughout Jackson County.

It was suggested to include ownership patterns of rentals when determining the City's vulnerability to provide affordable rentals. Oregon Housing identified Ashland as a number one priority for funding because renters in Ashland were more rent burdened than the state average. The development budget also includes STC reductions.

Eric Dukes/2325 Ashland Street/Noted that without a parking lot at Clay Street, parking would overrun the already congested area. He cautioned Council regarding the quick timelines for the project and said his primary concern was Westwood Park. He commented that STC money and food tax funds were depleted. He agreed with the overall project but opposed the Parks Commission funding it by selling other parks. He explained that Westwood Park took eight years to develop and shared some of the parks current issues. He encouraged Council to look at the community goals for Westwood and resolve those issues.

Mary Ruth Wooding/727 Park Street/Explained she had nothing against affordable housing but was against getting rid of parking in the downtown area. There needs to be more parking not less, specifically downtown.

Evan Archerd/550 E Main Street/Voiced his appreciation on the project, noted his involvement and that the Land Trust supports the project. He explained why Clay Street was important to affordable housing. The terrain is almost level; the location and construction costs are low. The location is ideal for living without a motor vehicle because of its close proximity to stores, restaurants, bus stops and the YMCA. He urged council to move forward with the project.

Councilor Hartzell clarified that there were parking lots on the Clay Street property and the head-in parking pertained to the 3.75 acres that the Parks Department may purchase.

Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to schedule a public hearing for November 4, 2008 to consider declaring the City owned property on Lithia Way as surplus property, and consider a purchase agreement for the land exchange and acquisition of the 10 acre property on Clay Street

DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty commented that the Housing Commission was discussing ways to use the air space over other parking lots in the downtown area and that the Lithia Lot may not be a good candidate because it was small. She attended a site visit to Maple Terrace with the Housing Commission, noted it was attractive, and did not seem cramped. Councilor Jackson voiced support for affordable housing projects but was concerned because the City budget was under great strain. The appraised value of the property was likely to continue to decrease, and currently the City would be paying $400,000 more than the appraised value from June. Selling the land to the Housing Authority for another discount of $40,000 meant the City would take on a burden of approximately $70,000 per unit and this was not a fiscally prudent decision at this time.

Councilor Silbiger agreed it was a good project and in the right location. He expressed concern that the City would pay considerably more than the market value. He explained that trading the Lithia Way lot was sketchy, and not having parking made it a double negative. If the wetlands were removed, the City would pay $411 per $1,000 of usable acre giving both the Parks Department and the Housing Authority a substantial discount. The project deserved a public hearing but paying more than the market value and using the Lithia Way lot as part of the deal required further discussion. The time constraint seemed troubling as well.

Councilor Hartzell pointed out that the State had determined Ashland a number one priority for affordable housing. If the Parks Commission decided not to move forward with the purchase, the City still had a value of $1.4 million that could be sold. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified that the deal was the appraised price or nothing, in which case the wetlands was factored in and that density would transfer to the remainder of the property.

Councilor Navickas voiced support for the project with concern regarding the Lithia Way lot as part of the deal. There was a need to look at the City as a whole, noting that sometimes a sacrifice had to occur in order to gain more benefit. The project would provide 50 units of affordable housing that could attract businesses that would invest in the community because they had the opportunity to provide housing for their workers. He preferred other funding sources as opposed to trading the Lithia Way lot. Having affordable housing in that area offered revitalization to the town, it could bring in young people and provide a place where people could live and work without automobiles for transportation as well as provide an example of what the City could build downtown.

Ms. Bennett explained that Council could order another appraisal but it would not meet the HAJC timeline. Councilor Hardesty voiced her support of the project going to the public hearing stage. Mayor Morrison commented that although it was a compelling project, without providing a factual basis prior to the public hearing, it might fail. He supported the project with the understanding that the City was in a difficult economic period and could not take on huge burdens lightly; they needed to be carefully crafted and analyzed. He observed that Council did not sound convinced that the economics weighed out as well as they should although the benefits were clearly articulated, if staff can make those match, it will pass, at this point, it bears moving it forward to public hearing.

2. Does the Council wish to endorse the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Alternative?

Tony Kerwin, Chair of Ashland Forest Lands Commission and Marty Main, Technical Advisor for the City, presented changes and clarifications to the Ashland Forest Lands Commission Recommendations to the City Council for Comment on the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) Project - Federal Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) with Specific Consideration of the Modifications to the Community Alternative made in the Preferred Alternative document.

It was stated that, historically one of the biggest problems in the watershed had been road construction and maintenance. The Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) was set by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under the Clean Water Act where the Forest Service could not exceed maximum levels of sedimentation to the reservoir. The question was asked if the Environmental Impact Statement had been thoroughly analyzed regarding the amount of maintenance and what the Forest Service would do to the roads and the type of mitigation to prevent sedimentation from those roads. Mr. Kerwin and Mr. Main responded that the Forest Service had adequately addressed how to mitigate sedimentation issues. Previous mitigation measures had been proven over time to prevent noticeable or detectable sediment amounts into streams. Monitoring is critical to ensure the Forest Service follows mitigation measures and limits are not exceeded. The Nature Conservancy was recently awarded a $44,000 grant from the National Forest Foundation to implement multi-party monitoring. The Nature Conservancy will set up a website available to the public. The grant will not cover the project long-term but will help establish the foundation for monitoring.

Previous work on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was noted, where the Forest Service would provide the City a 10-year business plan on the implementation of the AFR. Staff was asked to create a document asking the Forest Service to provide 1-3 field trips yearly, with a minimum of at least one, for Council to view treated areas first hand. Mr. Kerwin explained the October 2007 Monitoring Plan required notification when the unit was laid out, when the unit was marked, and completion with an opportunity to receive feedback regarding the process used. It was clarified that the only place they removed the 7" diameter limit was in the Talent Wild Land Urban Interface (WUI) area where the Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative (AFRCA) deferred to the Forest Service on treatments within that area. All other areas in the proposal suggest a 7" diameter limit.

Frank Lang/535 Taylor Street/Explained he had been a Southern Oregon University (SOU) Professor of Biology and Botany, Systematic Botany, Plant Ecology and later Biological Illustration and Conservation of Natural Resources. He retired in1997 and worked until 2000 for the Bureau of Land Management. He recommended that Council endorse the Preferred Alternative for the AFR Plan. He felt the Preferred Alternative provided the best balance for fire management with roadless areas, wilderness characteristics, spotted owls, riparian protection and unstable slopes. Dropping the arbitrary 7" diameter limit on tree removal on the interface with Talent would allow effective restoration efforts based on ecological principles. He thought the 7" diameter requirement was a ploy to prevent commercial harvest in the watershed and therefore unnecessary as long as interested parties in the City continued to pay attention and work together during the planning and implementation of on-ground activities.

Joan Resnick/Acknowledged the professional resources that went into creating the Preferred Community Alternative, noting that the Alternative was pragmatic, adaptable, protective and restorative. It was not perfect but a great start in collaboration efforts with the Forest Service.

Dan Thorndike/369 Granite Street/Explained that he was a long term resident to the Rogue Valley and recently completed 11 years of service on the Oregon Water Resources Commission. During that time, he was a part of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). He noted the challenges of finding commonality among divergent value systems and balancing short-term impacts and long-term gains and endorsed the project.

Chris Chambers/590 Elizabeth/Explained he was a citizen volunteer on the AFRCA Technical Team (AFRCAT) and that his views were personal and not represented by the AFRCATs. He clarified a factual inaccuracy in a letter that was circulated in a previous Council Agenda Packet regarding the FEIS and this discussion. He noted that based on the discussions from that meeting there were also some conceptual inaccuracies surrounding the project. Specifically the letter said that the HAZRED Project regarding the fire danger that resulted in the formation of the Ashland Water Protection Project (AWPP) removed all commercial logging from the Ashland Watershed when in fact the AWPP included 185 acres of commercial logging. This project was talking about commercial removal to support the restoration of forest eco systems and fire protection in the watershed and not logging in its worst forms. Another example of supporting community forestry was Phase II of the Ashland Forest Lands Restoration Project where another 185 acres were logged by helicopter for restoration and fire abatement purposes in the lower watershed using a plan that community members developed over a period of years.

Darren Borgias/33 N Central/Explained he has worked with the Nature Conservancy for 20 years. He worked with the Jackson County Integrated Fire Management Plan, helped with forest restoration, fuel reduction projects, and is currently active on the Small Diameter Stewardship Collaborative. He felt the most important forest restoration project was the Ashland Forest Resiliency for the Ashland watershed. On behalf of the Nature Conservancy, he urged Council to endorse the project's Preferred Alternative along with the recommendations of the Forest Lands Commission. He explained that the Ashland Forest Resiliency would help both the forest and community become resilient to fire and that the Preferred Alternative was important and necessary.

Victoria Sturtevant/720 Forest Street/Explained she was a Social Scientist with SOU, in the Environmental Studies Program, and on a national team of Researchers studying CWPPS across the country. She noted that the CWPPS and the Community Alternative were unique in the nation. She explained the collaborative process for the Preferred Alternative was a complicated process that not only contained time restrictions, was very technical with many divergent viewpoints yet was able to reach common goals in a limited time and produced a sophisticated document. The process was inclusive, open, and transparent and invited community participation. There was a potential for future collaboration and cooperation with the Forest Service, Environmental groups, Community groups, schools, the university with great potential for social learning, adaptive management, multi-party monitoring. Environmental Studies students were ready to help design the multi-party monitoring and work on the implementation monitoring. This was a great opportunity for the community. She asked Council not to forget the City's investment on the project.

Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to approve the endorsement of US Forest Service Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Alternative with recommendations provided by the Ashland Forest Lands Commission. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell was not going to endorse the Preferred Alternative because it was a time of comment and did not think this was what the Forest Service was looking for. She voiced appreciation for the efforts of the Forest Lands Commission.

Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to amend the motion to add the recommendation that the Forest Service work with the City of Ashland on the development of an Memorandum of Understanding specific to Ashland Fire Resiliency Project to implement the Ashland Forest Lands Commission October 10, 2007 Monitoring Plan. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman could not support the amendment because he did not know what the recommendation was. Councilor Hartzell explained that the Forest Lands Commission put together a more comprehensive monitoring plan that does implementation and effectiveness monitoring, and has raised money to support the plan. The amendment was asking the City and Forest Service to work on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would come back to Council for consideration and would possibly take 6-9 months to develop. Councilor Hardesty thought the monitoring could start without the MOU but having an MOU would give it "teeth." Councilor Jackson was not convinced that another legal document was necessary to move forward and did not think the amendment was necessary. Councilor Chapman was interested in moving forward but was not sure that an MOU was the right thing and would not want to qualify something this specific without talking to Mr. Kerwin and others to determine if it was sufficient. Councilor Hartzell explained that the amendment was taken from action the Forest Lands Commission had made in the last two years to move forward. She was not proposing anything new but asking that it move ahead. Councilor Navickas commented that the Forest Lands Commission had been working on this for some time and they strongly supported the concept adding it would give them more authority in dealing with the Forest Service and the MOU is the type of document that would give them legal authority. Councilor Hartzell clarified this was not about authority but codifying an agreement. Councilor Silbiger noted that the amendment honored the last paragraph of the forest recommendations. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Hartzell, Silbiger and Hardesty, YES; Chapman and Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2.

Continued Discussion on amended motion:

Councilor Jackson acknowledged they had received a letter from James Iggy, a respected Scientist from the University of Washington encouraging Council to support the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project.

Councilor Navickas/Hartzell m/s to amend the motion to include a recommendation that states historically road construction, grading maintenance and use has been the largest contributor of sediment within the watershed. Council has concerns about the large number of helicopter pads, road use and road reconstruction associated with this project. It has been suggested that we restrict hauling along the 2060 road from Four Corners to Section 30 removing helicopter pads 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20. The Council would like this restriction considered.

DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas explained the intention was for the Forest Service to consider the amendment. Historically road construction has been the most impactful issue. The Forest Service had been willing to remove chunks of the fuel breaks in the upper parts of the roadless area. This would have very little impact on the over all project but reduce the cost significantly and still maintain the heavier fuel reduction around the City and the periphery of the watershed. Councilor Hartzell asked how Councilor Navickas would argue against his amendment. He responded that there would be benefits to removal of fuels within those areas. He clarified that fuel removal could still occur in those areas; it would prevent the Forest Service from hauling the trees out of the watershed, that down wooding debris is a benefit to any forest and actually creates more fire resiliency by retaining moisture within the site. Councilor Jackson noted that the Forest Lands Commission did discuss it and that down wood debris was in the subscriptions. The Forest Service might not use all the helicopter pads but wanted to keep their options open. Councilor Hardesty clarified Councilor Navickas' motion that if the Forest Service was not going to use all the helicopter pads, they should not build them. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas and Hardesty, YES; Councilor Chapman, Hartzell, Silbiger and Jackson, NO. Motion failed 4-2.

Councilor Navickas commented that he was familiar with the history of the projects in the watershed and there was a lot of misinformation regarding them. He noted the document did not include information regarding the current 9.5 miles of fuel breaks already within the municipal watershed. In the early 1990's, when there were helicopter landings at Four Corners and HAZRED came forward, it was controversial because the public saw the type of abuse associated with these projects. Closed canopy forests create cool conditions whereas thinning forests and opening up the canopy can cause small diameter fuels that may explode, temperatures become warmer, sites are drier and subsequently more fire prone. What needs to occur within these areas is non-commercial work that requires hand piling, burning and thinning from below. This project clearly emphasizes timber removal over real fire management and understory fuels treatment. It will create more problems than it will solve by opening canopies and making forests more prone to fire. He concluded that road construction, helicopter pads and logging associated with this project will have more impacts then benefits.

3. Will the Council approve a resolution allocating Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenue for tourism and non-tourism purposes for FY2009-2010 and after?

City Administrator Martha Bennett suggested Council strike the paragraph at the end of page one and beginning of page two. She also clarified that the Chamber of Commerce fell under 3rd Priority Other Non-tourism Projects determined by Council on page two.

Councilor Chapman noted that the City no longer awards grants smaller than $2,500 and asked to strike the following from the paragraph on page two that starts "By January 31 of each year…." Strike "…greater than $2,500 for non-tourism programs or any amount specifically intended for tourism per this resolution…"And strike the last sentence : "Grant recipients of $2,500 or less for non-tourism programs are required to report its use only when requesting additional money in a subsequent year."

Ms. Bennett explained that the Every Other Year Social Grants were under other money in the General Fund.

Councilor Chapman asked to strike the last line in the Allocation for FY 2008-2009 Only Table based upon Council direction.

Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg provided an overview of the TOT FY-2010 Projected Revenue Range spreadsheet explaining the table was a comparison of what was covered and what may occur in the next two years.

Councilor Hardesty felt the decision required more discussion and suggested moving the TOT Resolution to the next Council meeting.

Tom Olbrich/356 Alta/Explained that he worked for small to medium non-profit groups on the marketing end. He had attended the previous night's Study Session and heard there were not enough small-medium organizations to warrant the 21% in the resolution. He clarified that there were and urged Council to pass the resolution as presented by staff and decided by Council.

Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve the Resolution #2008-35 as presented by staff with the suggested amendments. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell explained that the 2% increase created more of an obligation towards tourism and that the suggestion was to move it from one category to another. Councilor Navickas noted that the Nuwandart Gallery went under because there was not enough funds allocated to small grantees, the gallery did not receive a City grant, and that may have affected their ability to receive other grants. Roll Call Vote: Silbiger, Navickas, Jackson and Hartzell, YES; Chapman and Hardesty: NO. Motion passed 4-2.

2. Should the Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, adding new Chapter 4.36, providing for the establishment of an affordable housing trust fund"?

5. Should the Council conduct and approve First Reading, Declare an Emergency, and Conduct Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Annexing Property Comprising 'Verde Village' and Formally Withdrawing Such Lands from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 and Declaring an Emergency"?

or

Should the Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Annexing Property Comprising 'Verde Village' and Formally Withdrawing Such Lands from Jackson County Fire District No. 5," and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

and

Will Council authorize the Mayor to sign the property line adjustment/partition plat map creating by adjustment the individual parcels to be exchanged with the owner of Verde Village, and the affordable housing parcel to be conveyed to RVCDC?

City Attorney Richard Appicello explained the reasons for declaring an emergency and defined fiscal loss as actual or threatened fiscal loss. The affordable housing provider was granted authorization to receive the property early and needed to acquire the property prior to year-end to retain their financing. The City also needs to comply with terms of the development agreement and exchange the property within 30 working days, which started 10/06/08 when the City received written approval from the Federal Government for the land exchange; failure to comply with the agreement would make the City subject to damages.

Councilor Hartzell opposed declaring an emergency explaining there was not enough information on what CDC was facing to understand potential fiscal loss.

John Wheeler, the Director of Acquisitions and Construction explained they needed to start building and have buildable lots by January 2009 in order not to miss the grant cycle, which would put building out another year if the cycle was missed. There was also money available from Community Frameworks that help fund the infrastructure for affordable housing. Currently they have $15,000 per unit allocated but require ownership now in order to complete the approval process by mid January.

Councilor Navickas opposed declaring the ordinance an emergency adding that throughout the process there had been a willingness to streamline the project, overlook regulations, ordinances and annexation criteria.

6. Should the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Annexation Chapter (AMC 18.106.030) Concerning Affordable Housing Standards for Annexation," and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

and

Should the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Type III Procedures Chapter (AMC 18.108.060) Concerning General Standards for Affordable Housing in Zone Changes," and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

Mayor Morrison announced that this item was pulled from the agenda at the request of staff. Item #6 requires a Public Hearing and had not been Noticed at the time of the meeting but will go on the next City Council meeting agenda.

7. Should the Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to Taxicabs, Providing for Certification of Taxicab Companies and Drivers, and Repealing Chapter 6.28," and move the ordinance to Second Reading?

Item delayed due to time constraints.

8. Should the Council conduct and approve the First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to Tour Bus and Special Vehicle Permits," and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

Item delayed due to time constraints.

9. Should the Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to the Review of Public Art Proposals, Establishing Criteria and Selection Processes for the Acquisition, Acceptance, or Removal from the Ashland Public Art Collection, "and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

Item delayed due to time constraints.

10. Should the Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to Establishment of a Uniform Administrative Appeals Process," and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

Item delayed due to time constraints.

OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS

Councilor Hartzell motioned to continue the meeting until tomorrow at noon. Motion denied due to lack of second.

Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s to continue meeting in order to complete items on agenda.

DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell asked for a continuation of the Council meeting to determine whether the Verde Village ordinance was an emergency. City Attorney Richard Appicello explained that Council could declare an emergency regarding the Verde Village ordinance at the 10/21/08 regular meeting. Councilor Hartzell preferred an earlier meeting.